Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Clarify SBOM type for release-time SBOMs #34

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 10, 2024
Merged

Clarify SBOM type for release-time SBOMs #34

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 10, 2024

Conversation

mprpic
Copy link
Contributor

@mprpic mprpic commented Oct 9, 2024

...to better align with the CISA SBOM type definitions.

@mprpic
Clarify SBOM type for release-time SBOMs
231167e 
...to better align with the CISA SBOM type definitions.
@mprpic mprpic requested a review from p-rog October 9, 2024 15:27
@p-rog
Copy link
Collaborator

p-rog commented Oct 10, 2024

I like this clarification. It will help to explain customers that the Deployed SBOM type reflects what exactly has been deployed in their, customer, environment, where not necessary all components are included (like selected rpm packages from all RHEL packages). Our "Curated" Build type SBOMs (created when product is released) will be a source for the Deployed SBOM type.

p-rog
p-rog approved these changes Oct 10, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@p-rog p-rog left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All changes looks good.

@mprpic mprpic merged commit 9909653 into main Oct 10, 2024
3 checks passed
@mprpic mprpic deleted the clarify-sbom-type branch October 10, 2024 14:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@p-rog p-rog p-rog approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@mprpic @p-rog